lordzack Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 The age old debate- Star Wars vs. Star Trek. Who would win? Let's assume after Nemesis and A New Hope. And lets assume that any one in either galaxy that is hostile normally is hostile still and would fight each other. No Rebel/Imperial alliances. I think the Alpha Quadrant civilizations would take heavy losses, even after allying together. After they ally with the Rebels they would defeat the Empire decisevely at Endor, along with the Rebels. The Cardassians would remain neutral. Klingons would land on Endor alongside the Rebels, using cloaked vessels. Luke, Leia, Han and the rest would get cut off from the others, and meet the Ewoks. Then all three forces would attack the bunker. The 501st would fight bravely, but they'd be forced into a corner. A standoff would begin as the Klingons and Rebels prepared for a final assault and the 501st hunkered down, hoping to hold them off long enough for they're enemies' fleets to arrive and be defeated. The Federation, Klingon, Rebel and Romulan force then arrives, to see the shield still up. They move in to engage the Imperial fleet. They take heavy casulties, but the Klingons begin they're final attack on the bunker. The Executor is destroyed by heavy torpedo, laser, phaser and disruptor fire from the Enterprise, Defiant and other vessels and they begin to break through the Imperial fleet. Fighters enter the Death Star and destroy it. The Imperials begin a retreat, but the Klingons destroy several vessels, including the Chimera. A tiny fraction of enemy forces escape. Then Kuat is taken by the Rebels. The New Republic is established and the Empire, knowing it is beat, signs a treaty. The galaxy is divided between the Empire, Rebublic and Klingons. The Empire remnains in civil war for several more years, which sometimes breaks into Republic or Klingon territory, but ends after the death of Palpatine's last clone.
Titanius Anglesmith Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 Um...Star Wars vs. Star Trek, and yet the Rebels side with the Klingons? Doesn't really fit. I'm not really sure which side would win, but I definitely like Star Wars better. I love ST: Next Generation, I hate Voyager and the Original series, and DS9 is average.
MachineCult Posted December 12, 2006 Posted December 12, 2006 This website pretty much closes the debate.
Relenzo2 Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Seems like Star Wars is built on a much more fantastic scale.
Redtech Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 Yeah, mass murder that is. Anyway, Jadzia Dax > Amidala+Leia. That solves it for me.
PoiuyWired Posted December 13, 2006 Posted December 13, 2006 This website pretty much closes the debate. Actually, according to that website and stats, Enterprise actually have a wee little bit of chance winning in a firefight... against a slave I. So it would be fun seeing a B-Wing Squadron going after half the Federation army... must be a beautiful thing indeed.
lordzack Posted December 14, 2006 Author Posted December 14, 2006 http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWhi2.html Try this website. I don't trust that AOTC book, really. I don't see how phasers could be that weak compared to turbolasers.
Carlo El Sanchez Posted December 27, 2006 Posted December 27, 2006 Star Trek eats bantha fodder compared to Star Wars.
Rabish Bini Posted December 28, 2006 Posted December 28, 2006 Star Wars by a mile. And I could see how Star Wars would win considering this is a Star Wars forum.
ferris209 Posted December 29, 2006 Posted December 29, 2006 Star Trek vs. Star Wars I think that settles it.
Johnpp Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 As said by Horny Zalaabar. Star Trek eat's Bantha fodder.
Negative Sun Posted December 31, 2006 Posted December 31, 2006 How odd that right now I'm playing a SW/ST mod on Freelancer right now...X-wings and the Falcon rule every galaxy out there, and wipe the floor with anything the Federation might throw at them...
MatBraken Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 ST Vs SW? I think SW wins hands down. Their is alot of thought that goes into the Star Wars movies where as the Star Trek series seems like most of the time the names of planets and alien creatures used in the series are compleltley random. Like the creators have tried so hard to make it realistic. I SOprefer SW. So Star Wars wins!
Ctrl Alt Del Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 This isnt a neutral field, of course SW is gonna win, with everyone's (including myself) vote.
Kristy Kistic Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Hmm. I like both and feel no need to compare them. One thing I would love to see is a weekly Star Wars series on tv.
Titanius Anglesmith Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Hmm. I like both and feel no need to compare them. One thing I would love to see is a weekly Star Wars series on tv. Just in case you don't know, there will be a Star Wars TV series in 2008 (I think that's when it comes out). If I'm not mistaken, it will take place during the Clone Wars, but none of the actors from the movies will be in it.
Ctrl Alt Del Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Just in case you don't know, there will be a Star Wars TV series in 2008 (I think that's when it comes out). If I'm not mistaken, it will take place during the Clone Wars, but none of the actors from the movies will be in it. Im not sure if this is certain, but the series takes place between EP III and IV. Late Clone Wars? Possible, but a introduction for some tv episode taking place in the Wars is even more possible.
urluckyday Posted January 3, 2007 Posted January 3, 2007 Hey, I can't argue this one...it must be Star Wars...stronger ships, aliens, and weapons...no contest... (I really hate trying to decide this b/c both series have their perks...Star Wars just has a lot more and a lot better ones)
aner21 Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 For some reason I never related to Star Trek. I've seen the movies on TV and a couple of episodes of some of the shows but I just find it lacking. It never captured my imagination although some of the episodes I've seen had good storyarcs and special effects, but I never got emotionally connected to the characters. So Star Wars it is.
Redtech Posted January 19, 2007 Posted January 19, 2007 Fair point, the movies aren't the best. But Star Trek is about a Utopian social condition. Deep Space Nine season 6 onwards shows war as an actual conflict of idealogies, people suffer and die...painfully etc, while Star Wars is pretty much war for Pre-pubesants and pro-Iraq warmongers.
Gug Eyewalker Posted January 19, 2007 Posted January 19, 2007 Gene Roddenberry vs George Lucas... well Roddenberry's dead. When it come down to it though, their careers are/were very similar. Rodenberry had a great deal of trouble getting Star Trek to go, when it was canceled everyone thought it was the end, until it came back. Actually, Star Wars and Star Trek, over the years, have head a very symbiotic relationship. There is NO doubt that Lucas was influenced by Star Trek (and Dune). And Star Trek may not have come back in the 80's had it not been for Star Wars, when paramount saw how much everyone loved Star Wars and said, "Well Fox has got Star Wars, what do we have?" So later on after Episode V, Paramount actually used Industrial Light and Magic to do the special effects for ST II, STIII, STIV, and maybe one other, but it was Star Wars that gave birth to ILM. Hence - the symbiosis. But Star Trek, because it diverted too far from what is originally was intended for , which was an idealistic exploration of Man's future, with a mostly optimistic attitude towards the human race, degenerated into war and space battles on virtually every episode. If star trek tries to be star wars it fails miserably. Anyway...another problem with Star Trek that became gradually worse, was a blatant disregard for continuity. This is something that has been avoided in the Star Wars universe, for good reason. Now about a Star Wars TV series....hmm I think its risky for the same reasons star trek went under. For a good TV series to work you have to concentrate on story for it to be sucessful, and laser battles get old after a while. It also becomes increasingly difficult to keep continuity as the universe expands. I dunno about the star wars TV series. And i dunno about mark hamil, he doesnt age well, unlike Harrison Ford...who could proabably still pull off Indiana Jones if he wanted to.
grievous797 Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 There is one thing that really cracks me up... that an entire federation armada of a hundred or so ships except the enterprise was completly obliterated by ONE borg cube. The Executor would obliterated the entire federation space navy without even the slightest decimal of power!
Gug Eyewalker Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 Ya know in Star Wars most of the Galaxy has already been explored mostly, a ship can travel through hyperspace to the other side in a time span that is well within reason, there is a centralized galactic government. In the Galaxy of star trek the Federation is no where near that level of technology. Now...I think the Borg would give the Empire a run for their money! Even if the Empire is more technologically advance, all the Borg have to do is assimilate a ship or two, and then they have Imperial technology. I am willing to bet a Borg cube coulda also taken on a flotilla of star destroyers. They are much bigger:: Length: 3,036 m Beam: 3,036 m Draft: 3,036 m
Redtech Posted January 22, 2007 Posted January 22, 2007 It's 'future science' in Trek versus 'we made this up as we went along' in Wars, really. Sisko for king IMHO.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.